Governments of the world are going to fail.
This is something that some might find hard to believe. However, it is a simple fact as we move further into the digital world.
A network like Hive is in keeping with the development of these entities. The growth is slow because the basic notions of network science is rarely thought about. For example, most heard of the concept of the network effect and, perhaps, Metcalfe's Law. The challenge is that he (along with Reed), look at each node as equal. This is not the case as evidenced by the fact networks follow the Power Law as opposed to a Poisson distribution.
This is explained by the concept of Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and myself joining a network. While we cannot accurately predict who will attract the most followers, we can state with a lot of certainty which will come in last (me). Why is this?
Here we see how these nodes become hubs. Other users flock to them, strengthening the network. It also adds a lot more value.
The key understanding is we are dealing with a new way of looking at things. We often discuss the idea of the network-state although this concept isn't far removed from our present system. Nation-states are effectively networks, meaning they operate in a similar manner. More importantly, their formation, in many instances, is the same.
However, we see these entities as centralized. Their structure is one designed for control. This is the downfall. It is also where something like Hive becomes resilient.
Before diving into Hive, we have to understand networks are everywhere. No matter what you look at, we are dealing with something connected to a network. The size of these will vary, as will the structure of them. Nevertheless, they exist.
Why is this important?
By understanding how we have networks in biology, sociology, computer science, and in all our institutions, we gain insight into the success and vulnerabilities of each. In a world of rapid change along with more powerful tools, we see how this is disruptive on a large scale.
One of the core components of the discussion is decentralization. This applies equally to the "real" as well as digital world. It is something that goes against human structure, at least since we moved from the hunter-gather phase. Therefore, what we are designing is counter to what is "normal" for humans based upon our conditioning over the last couple thousand years.
Obviously, we will point out that governments fall into this category.
The problem is one of geography, or our belief in this. Again, most of us are reared in a world where this was part of our conditioning. We look at the world through our geography based eyes.
With digital networks, we see geodesic replacing geographic distance. Basically, this is the distance between two nodes, using the shortest path. Naturally, this is not based upon a physical distance.
Going back to the names above, they close the gap between nodes when they are a hub. Suddenly, two people following Barack Obama are closer due to their "union" with him. This creates resiliency because this is self-replicating throughout the entire network.
When look at the present form of government, what comes to mind? I think the one word that captures the essence is "force". This is what governments specialize in.
An extension of this is attack. Governments are constantly waging attacks. This starts with the very essence of those who are placed in charge, politicians. They spend most of their time attacking from their ideological perspective with the intention of gaining more power. There are a number of departments and structures built into governments that carry out attacks in many different forms. We see them waged against each other, the population, and even other governments.
In short, government operate based upon force. They know nothing else. Some might take exception to this term but that is what laws are. Of course, under the present system, citizens have little choice.
This all changes with network-states (digital). There is fluidity that does not exist in geographic states.
For example, in the latter, someone living in Southern California is much closer, in distance, to one in Mexico than Maine, yet they live under the same laws as the ones in New England. Within the digital realm, these geographic barriers disappear.
At the same time, becoming a dual citizen is very different. It is a slow process that usually requires living for a period of time in the second country. With digital states, it only requires have stake in that network.
We have to repeat this: nation-states are really networks so what is unfolding is nothing new. We are seeing a major shift in the design.
Which brings us to government attacks. When going after something decentralized, it is impossible.
Hive is a digital network with an integrated cryptocurrency. This means that all the tenets of an economy apply. At the same time, it is a system of distributed enclaves that are spread throughout both the physical and digital worlds. This means that conquering is not the approach. Instead, we now move into acquisition.
A founder can sell what he or she created. If there is enough distribution of ownership, through tokenization, this might be a decision of the entire community. Naturally, if there is an attack, the "citizens" can opt to leave.
To contrast, a group of people cannot pick up all the homes and businesses in Mexico and move it.
Here we see how the network design alters things.
The construction of new networks is also serving to expand the larger network. Everything is a network within a larger one.
Facebook and Twitter are part of the social media network. There is a divide between the two since they do not allow for "dual passport". Instead, each requires a separate log in and following list. If we delve into each, we see that attack internally is not possible since there are many hubs (another word for network).
These are, however, centralized. In this regard, they follow many of the same actions as governments. Force is still the primary weapon, albeit indifferent from governments. The challenge with Web 2.0 was with the concept of choice. People had their personal and digital lives at the mercy of these the entities behind these platforms. It was a digital reconstruction of the physical world.
The challenge is whether these digital networks can be reigned in. Governments believe that can still control them, which is a debatable point. Facebook has over 2 billion users (some claim 3 billion). It basically has the population of India and China combined.
We are at a point of debate only because these entities are centralized. Something like Hive can alter this. Here we see the formation of different networks under one heading, that is not controlled by anyone.
In other words, the expansion of networks operates at such a speed that it cannot be attacked. As you move further out the power distribution curve, the "weaker" nodes get harder to reach. The challenge is they do not necessarily remain that way.
Of course, it becomes a numbers game at that point, one that is spread throughout the world geographically.
All of this makes the efforts of governments ineffective. Anything that is truly structured like Hive is going to fall under the same umbrella. While different hubs can be attacked, the entirety of the network is beyond the reach of governments.
Anything that has force as the primary means of operation is going to fail. It is going to be as effective as using force against water. Punch it and what happens? The water ripples further out.
This is exactly how networks are forming. Attack one area and the power simply pushes further out, putting it even further out of reach.
Hive epitomizes this.
